Major analysis confirms global warming is real

On 26/10/2011 05:39, Peter Webb wrote:

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 11:54:26 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

Perhaps you can provide a link to the answers?

You don't have the intellectual capacity to understand them- as
demonstrated many times. I'm not wasting my time on a science denier.

So you can't give me a link to the answers.

Which rather makes a lie of your statement that you have provided them
many times before.

Here is a hint, for those unfamiliar with science. If you can't define a
term, then you can't make scientific statements regarding that term.
Have a look at what regular sciences do. For example, Einstein's theory
or relativity states there is no such thing as absolute simultaneity.
Einstein first defined this concept (and some others regarding
simultaneity) before making any statements concerning its properties.

In fact, in all sciences you will find the terms that it uses to be well
defined. Chemistry defines terms like pH, mole, triple point, partial
pressure, polymer, ion, valence and many others, which is a
pre-condition for being able to talk about properties like pH, mole,
triple point, partial pressure, polymer, ion, and valence.

If climate "science" is to make statements about "global warming" (as
indeed the title of this thread does), then it has to define the term.

All I want is the definition of this term, such that given a temperature
record we can determine whether "global warming" was occurring at that
time.

For example, was global warming occurring in 1961?

It is a very simple question. It just requires you to define "global
warming". Why won't you do that? Does it have a definition, or is it a
meaningless term?

Which day in 1961?

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:07:50 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"Paul Schlyter" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 21:32:06 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
In that particular case no calculation is necessary - a quick
glance at
the figure you linked to is enough. Unless you're blind
(physically or
mentally) that is....

So, was global warming occuring in 1961?

What's so special about the year 1961? Woukdnt't it be more
interesting to
know about the global warming over the entire time period of the
diagram?



I just picked 1961 as an example, so you could illustrate the rule
for
determining if global warming is occuring at a particular time. Any
or all
other years would suffice equally well.





There you go again! You add or change a small detail in your
question,
then you claim your question is completely new even though it's
just a
small variation of questions you've already asked many times
before.

And never been answered.

You didn't understand the answers......


I never got any.


I am just after a definition of "global warming" sufficient to
determine
whether it is occuring at any particular time (assuming you had
full
knowledge of the variables that you use, such as a complete record
of
previous and subsequent global temperatures).


Most scientific definitions take about a sentence. For example I
can define
"Mole", "Valency", "Acceleration", "Prokaryotic", and a bazillion
other
words by science in a sentence.


What is the problem with simply giving a definition of "global
warming" in
the same manner as real sciences define their terms?








I just want a scientific term defined. That term being "global
warming".
That definition is simple: there is a global warming if the
global mean
temperature increases. It's no more complex that that.

Increases since when? The day before? The year before? The decade
before? An
increase implies a difference between two numbers. I am guessing
that one of
the numbers is the average global temperature for that year. I am
also
guessing that the other is the average global temperature during
some
different year. Is this correct? What is the "other" year which
is
used for
comparison?

See? Immediately you pick apart the question with those gory
little
details. There are no fixed answers to all your little questions
--
you have to make wise choices of those parameters.


So "global warming" has no fixed meaning?


It can mean whatever you want, and you don't have to say what it
is? So I
could pick the period of the baseline to commence 20 million years
ago, in
which case we are undergoing global cooling, or I could pick it as
150 years
in which case we are undergoing global warming?


Are their any other fields of science that you know of where key
terms have
no fixed meaning?


And what is the meaning of "Global Warming" in the statement "Major
analysis
confirms global warming is real"? If you use a 20 million year
baseline for
the measurement, then it is certainly false. Its probably false if
you use a
10 year baseline.


Without a fixed meaning to the term "global warming". I am
struggling to
interpret what the statement "global warming is real" is actually
supposed
to mean in terms of the temperature record. Do you know? Can you
tell me?




Of course you don't know what 'wise' is, that's why you ask those
sillyquestions.

Have you got a single calculation which shows that global warming
has ever occurred?

No calculations needed - if there neved had been any global
warming, it
would still be as cold as during the ice ages. Obviously that's
not the
case, therefore we've had global warmings.


But when?


Was their global warming in 1961?


Can you identify a single year, in which global warming occured,
and tell us
how you determined that global warming occured in thet year?



Was global warming happening in 1961? If it was, when did it
increase
from which means that global warming was occuring? If it
wasn't
when was the period over which there was no temperature
difference?

....and how do you intend to use the answers to those silly
little
questions?


By looking at how you determined if global warming occured in 1961,
and use
this to reverse engineer a definition for global warming.


Treat it as a worked example.


So, was their global warming in 1961, and how did you determine the
answer?








I realise that their are limits to measurement. That is not the
issue. Lets
imagine that you had access to complete and accurate temperature
records -
say the records which have been published for the last 150 years
are
perfectly correct. What formula/algorithm/definition allows you
to
determine
when global warming did or not occur within that period of
(assumed) perfect
and complete temperature records?

No single formula is sufficient, you must supplement your
formulae with
wise judgement. Of course the word 'wise' is completely alien to
you, so I
expect you to go bonkers when trying to reply to this.


It has no fixed meaning?


You can change its meaning to suit whatever argument you want? And
you don't
even have to state which meaning you are using?


What definition of "global warming" applies to the subject of this
thread,
"Major analysis confirms global warming is real"? Or is it
undefined, in
which case this statement is meaningless?








And here's where your agenda reveals itself: you want to avoid
the obvious
conclusions, and you do so by requesting unattainable
perfection.

No. I do not ask for any perfection. I don't actually care about
the
possible inaccuracies in the temperature record; they are the
best
we have.
I simply want a definition of "global warming", such that given
an
idealised
perfect and complete temperature record the periods during which
global
warming occurred can be identified.

You should care about the inaccuracies because they do matter....



Not to a definition of global warming, they don't. There are lots
of
physical things that are hard to measure in practice, but
nevertheless have
precise definitions. It is very hard to accurately measure the
specific heat
or pH of a substance in practice, but they both have very precise
definitions - as indeed all scientific terms do (except apparently
"global
warming", "extreme weather", and some other from climate "science".)







Imagine that the all of the values given in the graph



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:In...e_Record_(NASA

).svg

are absolutely correct and perfect.

During which years was global warming occurring? How did you work
that out?

The answer to that question isn't particularly interesting. It's
the
overall picture that's interesting.




Why don't you answer the question?


I personally am very interested by what the term "global warming"
is
supposed to mean, because I hear it a lot but have never seen a
definition.


Now you tell me it has no fixed meaning at all, and there is no way
of
determining of global warming was occurring at any specific time in
history.


Which then makes the statement " Major analysis confirms global
warming is
real" completely meaningless, because "global warming" is undefined.


Which, incidentally, is the point I first made when entering this
thread.


What is it with cranks inventing words to support their theories
but never
defining them? We have enough problems with relativity cranks
talking about
the "ether" without defining what they mean, without you AGW
believers doing
the same with "global warming".



Before you can get any answer you're satisfied with, you must learn
to ask a good question. In particular, you must learn to avoid
getting the important stuff obscured by immensing yourself into all
those little details, which you are so fond of doing. But as long as
you do that, you'll never find any answers - and that's your own
fault.

But I'll try to produce a really simple answer to you: there is a
global warming whenever the globe gets warmer. It's just as simple as
that.

"OG" wrote in message
...
| On 26/10/2011 05:39, Peter Webb wrote:
|
| "Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
| ...
| On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 11:54:26 +1100, "Peter Webb"
| wrote:
|
| Perhaps you can provide a link to the answers?
|
| You don't have the intellectual capacity to understand them- as
| demonstrated many times. I'm not wasting my time on a science denier.
|
| So you can't give me a link to the answers.
|
| Which rather makes a lie of your statement that you have provided them
| many times before.
|
| Here is a hint, for those unfamiliar with science. If you can't define a
| term, then you can't make scientific statements regarding that term.
| Have a look at what regular sciences do. For example, Einstein's theory
| or relativity states there is no such thing as absolute simultaneity.
| Einstein first defined this concept (and some others regarding
| simultaneity) before making any statements concerning its properties.
|
| In fact, in all sciences you will find the terms that it uses to be well
| defined. Chemistry defines terms like pH, mole, triple point, partial
| pressure, polymer, ion, valence and many others, which is a
| pre-condition for being able to talk about properties like pH, mole,
| triple point, partial pressure, polymer, ion, and valence.
|
| If climate "science" is to make statements about "global warming" (as
| indeed the title of this thread does), then it has to define the term.
|
| All I want is the definition of this term, such that given a temperature
| record we can determine whether "global warming" was occurring at that
| time.
|
| For example, was global warming occurring in 1961?
|
| It is a very simple question. It just requires you to define "global
| warming". Why won't you do that? Does it have a definition, or is it a
| meaningless term?
|
| Which day in 1961?
|
Nov. 5th at 6:13 pm.

Before you can get any answer you're satisfied with, you must learn to ask
a good question. In particular, you must learn to avoid getting the
important stuff obscured by immensing yourself into all those little
details, which you are so fond of doing. But as long as you do that,
you'll never find any answers - and that's your own fault.


What is wrong with this question:

"What is the definition of "global warming", such that we can determine from
a temperature record when it was and was not occuring?".

But I'll try to produce a really simple answer to you: there is a global
warming whenever the globe gets warmer. It's just as simple as that.

Warmer than what?

Warmer than it was 1 minute ago? One day ago? One year ago?

You must surely realise that this couldn't possibly be a definition of
"global warming", as it doesn't specify what the current global temperature
is compared to to see if it is "warmer".

So, if the earth's temperature is cooler on average today than yesterday,
but warmer on average than it was a year ago, but cooler on average than it
was a decade ago, but warmer on average than it was a Century ago, is global
warming occurring today?

This is why I asked for a worked example based on 1961 (which I picked
pretty much at random). You say that "global warming" is when the earth is
getting warmer, what year is 1961 supposed to be warmer than in order for
global warming to have been occurring then. Warmer than 1960? Warmer than
1931? Warmer than when, exactly?

Or pick this year, or last year, or any year, and tell us if it was globally
warming at that time, and how we know this to be true.

So, has the earth ever "globally warmed", and when? Can you point to a time
in the last 50 years when there was global warming? When was it? How do you
know it was warming at that time? What two numbers did you subtract to see
if one date is "warmer" than the other, which appears to part of the
definition of global warming?

By the way, if you ever need any assistance calculating a substance's pH
given its ratio of Hydrogen ions, or a body's acceleration given its
position over time, or its atomic weight given its isotopic ratios, then I
can help. You just take the numbers, plug them into the definition (pH,
acceleration, atomic weight), and out pops the answer. These are terms from
real sciences, and hence they have real definitions. What is the equivalent
for "global warming"?

"OG" wrote in message
...
On 26/10/2011 05:39, Peter Webb wrote:

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 11:54:26 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

Perhaps you can provide a link to the answers?

You don't have the intellectual capacity to understand them- as
demonstrated many times. I'm not wasting my time on a science denier.

So you can't give me a link to the answers.

Which rather makes a lie of your statement that you have provided them
many times before.

Here is a hint, for those unfamiliar with science. If you can't define a
term, then you can't make scientific statements regarding that term.
Have a look at what regular sciences do. For example, Einstein's theory
or relativity states there is no such thing as absolute simultaneity.
Einstein first defined this concept (and some others regarding
simultaneity) before making any statements concerning its properties.

In fact, in all sciences you will find the terms that it uses to be well
defined. Chemistry defines terms like pH, mole, triple point, partial
pressure, polymer, ion, valence and many others, which is a
pre-condition for being able to talk about properties like pH, mole,
triple point, partial pressure, polymer, ion, and valence.

If climate "science" is to make statements about "global warming" (as
indeed the title of this thread does), then it has to define the term.

All I want is the definition of this term, such that given a temperature
record we can determine whether "global warming" was occurring at that
time.

For example, was global warming occurring in 1961?

It is a very simple question. It just requires you to define "global
warming". Why won't you do that? Does it have a definition, or is it a
meaningless term?

Which day in 1961?

The definition requires daily temperatures?

So without daily temperatures, we have no way of knowing if global warming
is "real" ?

Given the fluctuations due to weather and the earth's elliptical orbit,
about half of the days in a year will be cooler than the day before and half
warmer. So about half of each year the earth is experiencing global warming
and about half we are experiencing global cooling?

For what days did the "Major Analysis conforms global warming is real"?
Because if global warming cuts in and out on a daily basis, I am interested
to know what days they confirmed it was happening ...

On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:46:07 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

Before you can get any answer you're satisfied with, you must
learn to ask
a good question. In particular, you must learn to avoid getting
the
important stuff obscured by immensing yourself into all those
little
details, which you are so fond of doing. But as long as you do
that,
you'll never find any answers - and that's your own fault.


What is wrong with this question:

"What is the definition of "global warming", such that we can
determine from
a temperature record when it was and was not occuring?".

That question is fine. But it gets out of your hans when you add a
zillion additional questions too, questions which often are outright
silly.

But I'll try to produce a really simple answer to you: there is a
global
warming whenever the globe gets warmer. It's just as simple as
that.

Warmer than what?

Warmer than previously....

Warmer than it was 1 minute ago? One day ago? One year ago?

Depends on what you're interested in: microweather, weather, or
climate? Take your pick.


You must surely realise that this couldn't possibly be a definition
of
"global warming", as it doesn't specify what the current global
temperature
is compared to to see if it is "warmer".

So, if the earth's temperature is cooler on average today than
yesterday,
but warmer on average than it was a year ago, but cooler on average
than it
was a decade ago, but warmer on average than it was a Century ago,
is global
warming occurring today?

This is why I asked for a worked example based on 1961 (which I
picked
pretty much at random). You say that "global warming" is when the
earth is
getting warmer, what year is 1961 supposed to be warmer than in
order for
global warming to have been occurring then. Warmer than 1960?
Warmer than
1931? Warmer than when, exactly?

Or pick this year, or last year, or any year, and tell us if it was
globally
warming at that time, and how we know this to be true.

So, has the earth ever "globally warmed", and when? Can you point
to a time
in the last 50 years when there was global warming? When was it?
How do you
know it was warming at that time? What two numbers did you subtract
to see
if one date is "warmer" than the other, which appears to part of
the
definition of global warming?

By the way, if you ever need any assistance calculating a
substance's pH
given its ratio of Hydrogen ions, or a body's acceleration given
its
position over time, or its atomic weight given its isotopic ratios,
then I
can help. You just take the numbers, plug them into the definition
(pH,
acceleration, atomic weight), and out pops the answer. These are
terms from
real sciences, and hence they have real definitions. What is the
equivalent
for "global warming"?

Here you go again with your zillions of stupid little questions.
Trying to answer them would be pointless since you'd just pick the
answers apart with zillions of more stupid questions.....

"Paul Schlyter" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:46:07 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

Before you can get any answer you're satisfied with, you must
learn to ask
a good question. In particular, you must learn to avoid getting
the
important stuff obscured by immensing yourself into all those
little
details, which you are so fond of doing. But as long as you do
that,
you'll never find any answers - and that's your own fault.


What is wrong with this question:

"What is the definition of "global warming", such that we can
determine from
a temperature record when it was and was not occuring?".

That question is fine. But it gets out of your hans when you add a zillion
additional questions too, questions which often are outright silly.


Then would you answer the question please?


But I'll try to produce a really simple answer to you: there is a
global
warming whenever the globe gets warmer. It's just as simple as
that.

Warmer than what?

Warmer than previously....

Warmer than it was 1 minute ago? One day ago? One year ago?

Depends on what you're interested in: microweather, weather, or climate?
Take your pick.

Climate.

That is the context; that is what the study we are discussing is about.
Didn't you look at it?

So, warmer than it was 1 minute ago? One day ago? One year ago? One decade
ago? One century ago? One millenium ago?





You must surely realise that this couldn't possibly be a definition
of
"global warming", as it doesn't specify what the current global
temperature
is compared to to see if it is "warmer".

So, if the earth's temperature is cooler on average today than
yesterday,
but warmer on average than it was a year ago, but cooler on average
than it
was a decade ago, but warmer on average than it was a Century ago,
is global
warming occurring today?

This is why I asked for a worked example based on 1961 (which I
picked
pretty much at random). You say that "global warming" is when the
earth is
getting warmer, what year is 1961 supposed to be warmer than in
order for
global warming to have been occurring then. Warmer than 1960?
Warmer than
1931? Warmer than when, exactly?

Or pick this year, or last year, or any year, and tell us if it was
globally
warming at that time, and how we know this to be true.

So, has the earth ever "globally warmed", and when? Can you point
to a time
in the last 50 years when there was global warming? When was it?
How do you
know it was warming at that time? What two numbers did you subtract
to see
if one date is "warmer" than the other, which appears to part of
the
definition of global warming?

By the way, if you ever need any assistance calculating a
substance's pH
given its ratio of Hydrogen ions, or a body's acceleration given
its
position over time, or its atomic weight given its isotopic ratios,
then I
can help. You just take the numbers, plug them into the definition
(pH,
acceleration, atomic weight), and out pops the answer. These are
terms from
real sciences, and hence they have real definitions. What is the
equivalent
for "global warming"?

Here you go again with your zillions of stupid little questions. Trying to
answer them would be pointless since you'd just pick the answers apart
with zillions of more stupid questions.....

No, I have only one real question, which you say is "fine". All the rest of
the questions are just alternative ways of trying to answer the same
question, because of the great difficulty I am having getting you to answer
the original question. Asking the same question in a different way,
suggesting you provide a worked example, etc.

Here is the question again:

"What is the definition of "global warming", such that we can determine from
a temperature record when it was and was not occurring?".

You say above that this exact question is "fine", but you apparently forgot
to give me the answer (again).

As this question is apparently OK by you, could you possibly supply the
answer?

On 28/10/2011 01:53, Peter Webb wrote:

"OG" wrote in message
...
On 26/10/2011 05:39, Peter Webb wrote:

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 11:54:26 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

Perhaps you can provide a link to the answers?

You don't have the intellectual capacity to understand them- as
demonstrated many times. I'm not wasting my time on a science denier.

So you can't give me a link to the answers.

Which rather makes a lie of your statement that you have provided them
many times before.

Here is a hint, for those unfamiliar with science. If you can't define a
term, then you can't make scientific statements regarding that term.
Have a look at what regular sciences do. For example, Einstein's theory
or relativity states there is no such thing as absolute simultaneity.
Einstein first defined this concept (and some others regarding
simultaneity) before making any statements concerning its properties.

In fact, in all sciences you will find the terms that it uses to be well
defined. Chemistry defines terms like pH, mole, triple point, partial
pressure, polymer, ion, valence and many others, which is a
pre-condition for being able to talk about properties like pH, mole,
triple point, partial pressure, polymer, ion, and valence.

If climate "science" is to make statements about "global warming" (as
indeed the title of this thread does), then it has to define the term.

All I want is the definition of this term, such that given a temperature
record we can determine whether "global warming" was occurring at that
time.

For example, was global warming occurring in 1961?

It is a very simple question. It just requires you to define "global
warming". Why won't you do that? Does it have a definition, or is it a
meaningless term?

Which day in 1961?

The definition requires daily temperatures?

You seem to think so

So without daily temperatures, we have no way of knowing if global
warming is "real" ?

Do you really think so?

Given the fluctuations due to weather and the earth's elliptical orbit,
about half of the days in a year will be cooler than the day before and
half warmer. So about half of each year the earth is experiencing global
warming and about half we are experiencing global cooling?

Isn't this what you want - a very precise definition that can be pinned
down to a single year?

For what days did the "Major Analysis conforms global warming is real"?
Because if global warming cuts in and out on a daily basis, I am
interested to know what days they confirmed it was happening ...


So if a daily basis is a stupid idea, what is the point of requiring a
definition for a single year?

On Oct 28, 7:35*pm, OG wrote:

So if a daily basis is a stupid idea, what is the point of requiring a
definition for a single year?

If it looks like a troll, smells like a troll, wears a troll's silly
hat and even limps like a troll.. then the simplest explanation is
that Webb is a troll. *|;o}

"OG" wrote in message
...
On 28/10/2011 01:53, Peter Webb wrote:

"OG" wrote in message
...
On 26/10/2011 05:39, Peter Webb wrote:

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 11:54:26 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

Perhaps you can provide a link to the answers?

You don't have the intellectual capacity to understand them- as
demonstrated many times. I'm not wasting my time on a science denier.

So you can't give me a link to the answers.

Which rather makes a lie of your statement that you have provided them
many times before.

Here is a hint, for those unfamiliar with science. If you can't define
a
term, then you can't make scientific statements regarding that term.
Have a look at what regular sciences do. For example, Einstein's theory
or relativity states there is no such thing as absolute simultaneity.
Einstein first defined this concept (and some others regarding
simultaneity) before making any statements concerning its properties.

In fact, in all sciences you will find the terms that it uses to be
well
defined. Chemistry defines terms like pH, mole, triple point, partial
pressure, polymer, ion, valence and many others, which is a
pre-condition for being able to talk about properties like pH, mole,
triple point, partial pressure, polymer, ion, and valence.

If climate "science" is to make statements about "global warming" (as
indeed the title of this thread does), then it has to define the term.

All I want is the definition of this term, such that given a
temperature
record we can determine whether "global warming" was occurring at that
time.

For example, was global warming occurring in 1961?

It is a very simple question. It just requires you to define "global
warming". Why won't you do that? Does it have a definition, or is it a
meaningless term?

Which day in 1961?

The definition requires daily temperatures?

You seem to think so


Not me.

The person who was going to tell me if it was warming in 1961 wanted to know
which day. So I assumed the temperature on that day was a factor.



So without daily temperatures, we have no way of knowing if global
warming is "real" ?

Do you really think so?


I wouldn't have thought so, no.

But you should be responding to the person who said that it depended on the
exact day in 1961.


Given the fluctuations due to weather and the earth's elliptical orbit,
about half of the days in a year will be cooler than the day before and
half warmer. So about half of each year the earth is experiencing global
warming and about half we are experiencing global cooling?

Isn't this what you want - a very precise definition that can be pinned
down to a single year?


No.

I already said what I want. About a thousand times, in fact.

"All I want is the definition of this term [global warming], such that given
a temperature record we can determine whether "global warming" was occurring
at that time."



For what days did the "Major Analysis conforms global warming is real"?
Because if global warming cuts in and out on a daily basis, I am
interested to know what days they confirmed it was happening ...


So if a daily basis is a stupid idea, what is the point of requiring a
definition for a single year?

I don't. Here is my question again:

"All I want is the definition of this term [global warming], such that given
a temperature record we can determine whether "global warming" was occurring
at that time."

No mention of day, year, or any other time period.

Do you know what "global warming" is supposed to mean? Does anybody here?